Why are you nerfing Epic Thornlord?

[Deathlylife]

What you are saying is mathematically impossible.

I provided a mathematical proof. I added both damage procs to the 'inferior' bow and added combat archery to both bows (original calc was lvl 20 for ship-siege, the one you wanted is lvl 21 for shadowstrike). Your simple example is only adding to one and has 0 multiplication (what happened to crit multi/range and ranged power?)

Any future reader is free to double check the math performed and suggest corrections or point out flaws. I listened to your concern of 5d6 (vs the 4d6 I originally looked at) as well as the Disintegration Proc and created a new post to run the numbers for you. I left the original post as lvl 20 as it is fundamentally different than a lvl 21 calculation with Combat Archery. If there is a problem, then please prove your stance running actual numbers (in any format that can be reviewed for mistakes as I have attempted). Including my calculations and not just the end result is the exact opposite of false or misleading but an attempt to show how I arrived at the conclusion.

Looking into your own math I would like to point out my own concern.

Now, using the example of

Epic Thornlord
(567 Average for 2-20 with IC)
VS
Epic Shadowstrike
(448.5 Average for 2-20 with IC)

All that is missing is to add in the missing 5d6 proc damage and the 2% chance of 15d20 + 300 untyped damage: 457.5 average damage, 9.15 average per hit.

There is no way for you to claim that by adding these numbers to your own math will further increase the difference. (I can see why you feel inclined to skip this step as it will prove you wrong)

I would like to point out the flaw of not considering ranged power or even damage bonuses. Simply adding procs will provide the result you so wish and I acknowledged that here. I did not skip the step. I had yet to reach that point in my calculations which I addressed shortly after in the exact same post, grouping everything together into a singular step makes it harder to follow what happened at each step. After considering the damage procs I admitted that it brought the other bows ahead of Thornlord, I then continued further to include the other factors. The numbers you are quoting from my post clearly stated that they are the base bow damage numbers and do not include additional crit threat/crit multi/damage bonuses/ranged power or even the procs you are so focused on. I attempted to include all of this to show that the damage would then go on to favor the Thornlord to make up as well as surpass the procs seeing as the procs do not scale with these other considerations. I believe these considerations should be used when talking about a lvl 20-21 build that will almost certainly have them in some amount.

Please stop quoting the very base numbers from the start of my calculations saying that I do not consider something when I clearly addressed it later.

[Zoveride]

As you can see, I'm caught up enough to be a bit upset about the tone and the accusations a certain someone uses on another user. You can totally disagree, you can use your own calculations to disprove Deathly's, but it's about how you say it.
Also, add one rather rude comment towards me, treating me like someone who neither read what is there and who needs to "catch up".

I can see that you took offense on his behalf. I'm genuinely not sure how to respond to that as this is new in society to take offense on behalf of others. If he is offended I can talk to him about it. As for the material, this is the language both of us have been using with each other on several threads so I see no problem. I also don't see you taking offense on by behalf when he uses the exact same words/language towards me. (I don't need you to take offense for me, just stating what I see and don't see.)

My comment towards you was not rude. I was pointing out that you must have missed some posts where I was treated the same way yet you overlooked that part but were surely offended on someone else's behalf for the exact same behavior I received by the same person.


Nope, I see no need to object someone to make another look on their numbers, pointing out some possible margin of error, or

Like I said before, it's a lot about how you phrase it, and now I also add: What you ask for. Easy example: "I don't see the proc of 5d6 added, did you include it?" or "The Unholy on Shadowstrike is 5d6, not 4d6." If you take then

You have a nice eloquent way to phrase the same meaning. Excuse me as I am not as eloquent in speaking as you, but it is a fair point, I can endeavor to phrase things in a kinder/friendly manner.

Add another accusation, this time towards me, as you accuse me of leaving things out of convenience without knowing any of my motives or thoughts.

This was not another accusation but actually the first. However, fair point about your motives. While on this subject, since you were caught up already, what was your motive then for being offended on his behalf but not mine for the exact same behavior?

I agree.

I also think, that instead of asking someone to do your math, you can absolutely do your own or at least act a bit huimble, if it doesn't work right now (time or abilit-wise). I mean, asking someone to spend their time and work to put the numbers you want into a calculation is quite a favor, no?

I was not asking for him to do any math on my part for my own benefit. This topic has been of discussion for a while now and he has his views as I have mine. I was pointing out that he was missing some serious, key information and should add that to accurately reflect his math.


I see a user on a forum, who does their best to calculate the numbers and may or may not make errors in the way. I mean, maybe Deadly has a degree in mathematics and therefore has to meet the standard of providing accurate calculations

Also, add another rude comment towards me, as you question my ability to see "good or bad math", when I wrote about "Do your own math."

I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you here and please don't construe this as "another rude comment".
I can just as easily "get offended" by your "rude comment towards me" along with your "offensive tone" at the start of your post.
Just like you said earlier about not knowing your motives, I also don't know your math ability. I was just trying to point out that missing a large amount of variables cannot result in a finished product. More information is needed.


So you "show him a service"? Wow, I mean, wow! o.O

Nothing against pointing out sources of errors or missing data, but instead of a helping hand, you're doing him a service?

So you are offended that I didn't choose your optimal choice of words, BUT you do approve of pointing out sources of errors or missing data? So, you approve of what I did, but you disapprove of me not being as humble about it?
Also, by saying doing him a service, this doesn't mean literally providing a professional service.

If you do someone a service, you do something that helps or benefits them.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/di...eone-a-service

I don't see the justification for the "Wow, I mean, wow! o.O"

Again, I'm sorry you feel offended again. I asked about your motivations. You don't seem to want me to correct anyone or show where there is any missing information. He has done some math and I am showing that information is missing. By him having the missing information and applying it to his math we can have not only more information but better quality.
What exactly is the problem in that? Math is not feelings to get offended because someone pointed out that it is flawed or missing something.

And add another accusation towards me.

I'm sorry that you felt offended. I am not trying to insult you and have address all of your concerns in the comments. Comments are in green above each 1 of your allegations against me.

[Pandjed]

Just for some thoughts, I like to calculate how it'll turn out if ETL isn't adapted. As basic, I use Deadly's aformentioned post (and some copy-pasta).

As requested: Lvl 21 Ranger with Combat Archery After Preview 2
Deepwood +1threat/+1multi
PBS +1 threat
CA +1[W] and +1 multi
Shiradi 19-20 +1 multi

Epic Thornlord: (20)
3[1d8+2] + 8 (27.5 Average)
16-20x5 19-20x6
Epic Shadowstrike: (21)
4[1d8] + 6 (24 Average) + 17.5 (5d6 proc) + 9.15 (Disintegration)
17-20x5 19-20x6

Total Dam Bonus: 49
Total RP Bonus: 165 + 30 BAB Scaling

Standing Case: Attack roll of 2-20
Thorn: (27.5+49)*14+(27.5+49)*3*5+(27.5+49)*2*6 = 3136.5 * 2.95 = 9252.7
Shadow: (24+49)*15+(24+49)*2*5+(24+49)*2*6 = 2701 * 2.95 = 7968.0 + 332.5 (5d6proc) + 173.9 (Disint) = 8474.4
(9252.7-8474.4)/8474.4 = 9.2%

Uh oh... the difference got bigger when I did it with your suggestion.

Epic Thornlord (untouched crit-range): (20)
3[1d8+2] + 8 (27.5 Average)
15-20x5 19-20x6

Standing Case: Attack roll of 2-20
Thorn(super-Crit): (27.5+49)*13+(27.5+49)*4*5+(27.5+49)*2*6 = 3442.5 * 2.95 = 10155.4

With these bonuses, the increase of 1 threat range equals to a difference of ~10% more damage [(10155.4-9252.7)/10155.4]), so Shadow would end up ~19% worse.



Personally, I think that we may end up in a better gaming environment, when the gap between weapons of the same type and min-level stay a bit closer. Yes, they're raid bows, but if there is no overwhelming need to farm that stuff in the first place to stand up 2 stairs above the rest of the choices for level gear (as endgame gear is easily accessible enough) and getting an ETL is more of a lucky coincident then the result of hours full of pain and regret put into that super rare item because otherwise you feel like you're missing out bows, then maybe it's better for the game.




Would be interesting to see, how ETL fares before the pass and after the pass to see, how much disparity is there. Don't have the time today or tomorrow to do the math, but would be interesting. Anyone up for the task?

EDIT: Whoopsie, made the wrong number going. Edited it and marked it red. Let's say, it bumped unnerfed ETL another 5%.

[Zoveride]

Looking into your own math I would like to point out my own concern.


I would like to point out the flaw of not considering ranged power or even damage bonuses. Simply adding procs will provide the result you so wish and I acknowledged that here. I did not skip the step. I had yet to reach that point in my calculations which I addressed shortly after in the exact same post, grouping everything together into a singular step makes it harder to follow what happened at each step. After considering the damage procs I admitted that it brought the other bows ahead of Thornlord, I then continued further to include the other factors. The numbers you are quoting from my post clearly stated that they are the base bow damage numbers and do not include additional crit threat/crit multi/damage bonuses/ranged power or even the procs you are so focused on. I attempted to include all of this to show that the damage would then go on to favor the Thornlord to make up as well as surpass the procs seeing as the procs do not scale with these other considerations. I believe these considerations should be used when talking about a lvl 20-21 build that will almost certainly have them in some amount.

Please stop quoting the very base numbers from the start of my calculations saying that I do not consider something when I clearly addressed it later.

This is the flaw though. You started out by trying to do the base math proving Epic Thornlord to be clearly ahead of all the rest without taking any procs or sources of damage into consideration.
While I am not stating that the other bows are better than Epic Thornlord, my point is that you are overstating the power it has by not including the full base information.
I am not asking you to do math for me, I am saying that you are missing key information.
We cannot measure things in a vacuum you said right? but then you base your math in a vacuum of crit die and multipliers.
While I don't doubt that Epic Thornlord can provide higher DPS than the other ML:20 bows, it is not fair to leave out the procs and other damage sources from those bows while Epic Thornlord doesn't have any and compare them.
By doing so, it will show EThorn to be much further ahead than the rest based off of missing information.
Again, I am not asking you to do any math for me, but if you compare the bows to the bows themselves not adding feats, enchancements, ED, etc...) I am confident that you will see that the difference between the bows does NOT increase but rather decrease while using ALL of the information contrary to your previous post "uh oh looks like the difference increases with your suggestion".

[Pandjed]

First, I like to say that I'm impressed with Zoveride's genuine post before and want to make sure, that's all water under the bridge for me now. I really don't mind disagreeing, just like to adhere to the "respect other" rule I accepted when making a forum account here.


I like to believe, that we all agree that ETL is still the better weapon in comparison to its peers, with or without nerf, and the only question we have is whether it's warranted or not.

For me, it's alright. ETL is, in the end, level gear and not meant to be forever. I think, having it stand 2 steps above the rest of its peers may be one too many though, as a disperaty of up to 20% damage may be just too large. Of course, the grind is real, but what is worse is how much these numbers make us grind it in the first place. It's "level-gear" and making it so attractive for us to partake in one of the most outdated and worst grinds of the game may be wrong in the first place.

I'd rather have it as "Let's run ADQ 2-3 times in epic this life and if I complete my S/S/S-set plus item this time around, I'll be happy, but also don't feel too bad if it doesn't happen."

Sucks for those who have the bow, but they numbers will most likely still go up (didn't do the math), and I much appretiate it if I don't feel like I miss out as much anymore, just because I think the grind is ridiculous in the first place.

Seriously, just start dropping either raid runes or the epic item without upgrading it, and we're golden, SSG. -_-'

[Tuxedoman96]

Adding a 4d6 proc for the other bows (14 Average) (266 Average for 2-20) brings the other bows ahead.

Pre-Update Calculation

All that is missing is to add in the missing 5d6 proc damage and the 2% chance of 15d20 + 300 untyped damage: 457.5 average damage, 9.15 average per hit.

There is no way for you to claim that by adding these numbers to your own math will further increase the difference. (I can see why you feel inclined to skip this step as it will prove you wrong)

@Zoveride: As far as I can tell, he added the damage procs into hard calculations afterwards because those on-hit effects are not affected by ranged power, so adding them up before that point would give false values. He even admits in the first post that the other bows would pull ahead with the damage procs if we do not factor in ranged power.

Granted, for E. Shadowstrike, the disintegration factor and extra d6 would mean that a player would need more RP for E. Thornlord to catch up (since the total damage for the full d20 dice roll would be 332.5 + 173.85 = 506.35 average bonus)

@Deathlylife: You forgot to account for manyshot for your pre-update calculations. That would be a huge boost to RP that could be reliably used pretty much every fight or every other fight.

[Tuxedoman96]

Again, I am not asking you to do any math for me, but if you compare the bows to the bows themselves not adding feats, enchancements, ED, etc...).

Isn't just looking at the bows by themselves (without feats and enhancements, filigrees, etc.) also taking calculations and making assessment in a vacuum? Although a case can be made for heroic enhancements (based on the class ofc), there's no reason not to assume that at least a majority of the ranged feats and ranged stats would be sought after by ranged players. To make calculations with the opposing assumption would grossly neglect the potential of the bows. There's a reason why the SoS, for example, is largely considered the best Two-hander in heroic, and it's not just because of the crit profile (although that's a big part) but also because of the enhancements, feats, etc. that can improve the weapon.

[Tuxedoman96]

Uh oh... the difference got bigger when I did it with your suggestion.

Incorrect.

False.

Correct.

[Deathlylife]

Incorrect.

Thank you for looking over the discussion so far as well as the math. Can you please point out how the difference did not get bigger? Just saying incorrect will not help me understand where a problem may have occurred. Maybe a misunderstanding in what I was referencing. I was saying the increase of difference occurred when the bow comparison of lvl 20 thornlord and Ship-Siege to the lvl 21 thornlord and Shadowstrike after the taking into account preview 2 for both cases. If that was unclear in following the thread I apologize.

Standing Case
Thorn: (21+49)*14+(21+49)*4*5 = 2380 * 2.95 = 7021
Ship: (19.5+49)*16+(19.5+49)*4*3 = 2123.5 * 2.95 = 6264.3 + 266 (4d6proc) = 6530.3
(7021-6530.3)/6530.3 = 7.5%

Standing Case: Attack roll of 2-20
Thorn: (27.5+49)*14+(27.5+49)*3*5+(27.5+49)*2*6 = 3136.5 * 2.95 = 9252.7
Shadow: (24+49)*15+(24+49)*2*5+(24+49)*2*6 = 2701 * 2.95 = 7968.0 + 332.5 (5d6proc) + 173.9 (Disint) = 8474.4
(9252.7-8474.4)/8474.4 = 9.2%

Uh oh... the difference got bigger when I did it with your suggestion.

From what I can tell changing from a lvl 20 bow comparison to a lvl 21 bow comparison (while including procs) did in fact increase the difference because of the effect of Combat Archery outweighing the additional proc increase. I had found that 9.2% > 7.5%. I only drew this comparison as they had seemed adamant to discuss the lvl 21 bow with 5d6 and disintegration while disregarding the lvl 20 calculations that were performed.

[unbongwah]

• Another thing that was done frequently to prop up Longbows and Shortbows in the past was to give them abnormally large Critical Threat bonuses. This is no longer needed after this pass, so we've taken Bows that have exceptionally large Critical Threat Ranges (18-20) and reduced them by 1 (19-20). All of these still have a larger Critical Threat Range than average Bows, just not as large as before. Preview 2 Note: Point Blank Shot now grants +1 Critical Threat Range with Bows. This means the loss of this threat range can easily be replaced in heroics and epics and now it applies to all available bows instead of only the specific subset below.
  
  • Affected Bows are:
    
    • Pinion, Cloud-Piercer
    • Sapphire Sting
    • Epic Sapphire Sting
    • Bow of the Elements (Air)
    • Silver Longbow
    • Epic Thornlord
    • Unwavering Ardency
    • Bow of Sinew
    • Collapsible Shortbow

So you lose a point of critical threat range on certain named bows (18-20->19-20), then gain a point of critical threat range from the change to Point Blank Shot (19-20->18-20) and end up...right back where you started.

How is that a nerf? Am I missing something or are people just salty for no good reason?

[FengXian]

So you lose a point of critical threat range on certain named bows (18-20->19-20), then gain a point of critical threat range from the change to Point Blank Shot (19-20->18-20) and end up...right back where you started.

How is that a nerf? Am I missing something or are people just salty for no good reason?

You're missing something.

That is a nerf relatively to other bows. They are choosing to have those bows, in this case ET, to NOT be affected by a pretty relevant aspect of the bow pass.

All bows needed a buff, some bows are getting less of a buff = nerf.

[Zoveride]

Isn't just looking at the bows by themselves (without feats and enhancements, filigrees, etc.) also taking calculations and making assessment in a vacuum? Although a case can be made for heroic enhancements (based on the class ofc), there's no reason not to assume that at least a majority of the ranged feats and ranged stats would be sought after by ranged players. To make calculations with the opposing assumption would grossly neglect the potential of the bows. There's a reason why the SoS, for example, is largely considered the best Two-hander in heroic, and it's not just because of the crit profile (although that's a big part) but also because of the enhancements, feats, etc. that can improve the weapon.

The point I was making was that there is an increase in the damage output to the Epic Shadowstrike that was missing in his initial calculation.
Death had previously posted some math comparing the DPS of about 4 different bows of similar ML. (EThorn, EShadow, EShip and I believe 1 other.
I pointed out that this is not the true DPS of those bows as certain factors were missing (5d6 and disintengration)
Due to Epic Thornlord having 0 damage procs or any other sources of damage procs while the others do will surely result in the math leaning to EThorn being much further ahead.

He replied by doing some math and stating that the difference between the 2 bows increased.

My counterpoint was that it is not possible to have a set of information about these 2 bows (EThorn and EShadow) to then ADD DPS to the lower of the 2 (EShadow) and for somehow the difference between these 2 bow to increase.

I am not arguing about RP and other goodies amplifying anything and what the total outcome will be.
My point is that if you ADD VALUES to his initial calculation of pure bow vs bow it is NOT POSSIBLE for the difference to INCREASE. It must DECREASE.
However they are affected after feats, etc... is a different discussion.

[FengXian]

First, I like to say that I'm impressed with Zoveride's genuine post before and want to make sure, that's all water under the bridge for me now. I really don't mind disagreeing, just like to adhere to the "respect other" rule I accepted when making a forum account here.


I like to believe, that we all agree that ETL is still the better weapon in comparison to its peers, with or without nerf, and the only question we have is whether it's warranted or not.

For me, it's alright. ETL is, in the end, level gear and not meant to be forever. I think, having it stand 2 steps above the rest of its peers may be one too many though, as a disperaty of up to 20% damage may be just too large. Of course, the grind is real, but what is worse is how much these numbers make us grind it in the first place. It's "level-gear" and making it so attractive for us to partake in one of the most outdated and worst grinds of the game may be wrong in the first place.

I'd rather have it as "Let's run ADQ 2-3 times in epic this life and if I complete my S/S/S-set plus item this time around, I'll be happy, but also don't feel too bad if it doesn't happen."

Sucks for those who have the bow, but they numbers will most likely still go up (didn't do the math), and I much appretiate it if I don't feel like I miss out as much anymore, just because I think the grind is ridiculous in the first place.

Seriously, just start dropping either raid runes or the epic item without upgrading it, and we're golden, SSG. -_-'

Those numbers make you grind it? Why, it's 3 levels, literally 20-22 and many people get saga xp at that point without even really playing. You'd feel compelled to go through that grind because it's the best bow for 3 meaningless levels?

Also, I might have missed something but it looks like math was done with LV 29 gear/stats in mind. Why?

Ofc a better crit profile weapon will benefit more from bonus stats increase. OFC if you try to squeeze in as much bonus damage/RP as possible the gap will grow bigger.

But it's irrelevant to the situation.

If anything you should do the math at level 20 (so no Combat Archery yet), 21 and 22.

Another point is that even if ET would pull ahead by 50% over other ML 20 bows, that would still not be an issue honestly. It's OK for absurdly rare weapons to be better, as long as they are not gamebreaking.

Seriously, just start dropping either raid runes or the epic item without upgrading it, and we're golden, SSG. -_-'

Making it more common isn't really a solution, either way SSG said no such thing. You want ET but you don't have it, ok.

Sucks for those who have the bow, but they numbers will most likely still go up (didn't do the math), and I much appretiate it if I don't feel like I miss out as much anymore, just because I think the grind is ridiculous in the first place.

There's the confession, you're jealous and since you don't wanna grind it you want it to be nerfed for those who have it. CASE CLOSED.

[Tuxedoman96]

Thank you for looking over the discussion so far as well as the math. Can you please point out how the difference did not get bigger? Just saying incorrect will not help me understand where a problem may have occurred. Maybe a misunderstanding in what I was referencing. I was saying the increase of difference occurred when the bow comparison of lvl 20 thornlord and Ship-Siege to the lvl 21 thornlord and Shadowstrike after the taking into account preview 2 for both cases. If that was unclear in following the thread I apologize.




From what I can tell changing from a lvl 20 bow comparison to a lvl 21 bow comparison (while including procs) did in fact increase the difference because of the effect of Combat Archery outweighing the additional proc increase. I had found that 9.2% > 7.5%. I only drew this comparison as they had seemed adamant to discuss the lvl 21 bow with 5d6 and disintegration while disregarding the lvl 20 calculations that were performed.

True, your statement was indeed ambiguous (and admittedly so was mine).

For one thing, you are comparing different bows under different circumstances. Your first case has E. Thornlord go against E. Ship-Siege bow, while the second case goes against E. Thornlord and E. Shadowstrike. The two calculations are incompatable. Second, what Zoveride was referring to was the comparison between two bows before taking on-hit effects into account and afterwards. In this case, your calculation with E. Shadowstrike already factored in the on-hit effect but the calculation never factored in the absence of the on-hit effect, so there was no real before and after, just after, and as the first calculation between the two bows it would be considered an initial comparison. There can't be said to be a increase in difference for an initial case (or a decrease in difference for that matter). Now, if you were comparing E. Thornlord against E. Ship-Siege bow with the lvl 21 feat, then your words would be correct, since you would have a calculation for the same subject for both before and after the change that has factored in the on-hit effect (with the change being the lvl 21 feat).

You added more variables and compared data points for two different subjects (E. Thornlord v E. Ship-Siege and E. Thornlord v. E. Shadowstrike), which wasn't Zoveride's point. He was pointing out the disparity between E. Thornlord v E. Shadowstrike w/o on-hit (which admittedly you hadn't yet calculated and still haven't) and E. Thornlord v E. Shadowstrike w/on-hit, so in actuality, you guys were talking about two different things altogether with regards to the disparity. If we are to make before and after comparisons, it should be on the same subject (e.g. E. Thornlord v E. Shadowstrike + parameter and E. Thornlord v E. Shadowstrike + parameter{changed}), that way we can truly know if the magnitude or factor in difference truly changed.

Here's an example: let's say that Bow A1 is 120 and Bow B1 is 100. Clearly the difference is 20, and if we are looking at the difference as percentage, then the difference is 20% (120 is 20% larger than 100). Now let's say that Bow A2 (same bow but different conditions) is 180 and Bow C2 (different bow but under the same conditions as Bow A2) is 120. The difference as a percentage would be 50% (180 is 50% larger than 120). The question here is, did the percentage difference change between A1 and C1 vs A2 and C2 (i.e. was A1 still 50% larger than C1, or less or more)? What about A1 and B1 vs A2 and B2? The question cannot be answered, since we don't know what C1 or B2 are.

That said, I do agree with your assessment of Thornlord with regards to it's growth potential and the possibility to overperform.

[Tuxedoman96]

The point I was making was that there is an increase in the damage output to the Epic Shadowstrike that was missing in his initial calculation.
Death had previously posted some math comparing the DPS of about 4 different bows of similar ML. (EThorn, EShadow, EShip and I believe 1 other.
I pointed out that this is not the true DPS of those bows as certain factors were missing (5d6 and disintengration)
Due to Epic Thornlord having 0 damage procs or any other sources of damage procs while the others do will surely result in the math leaning to EThorn being much further ahead.

He replied by doing some math and stating that the difference between the 2 bows increased.

My counterpoint was that it is not possible to have a set of information about these 2 bows (EThorn and EShadow) to then ADD DPS to the lower of the 2 (EShadow) and for somehow the difference between these 2 bow to increase.

I am not arguing about RP and other goodies amplifying anything and what the total outcome will be.
My point is that if you ADD VALUES to his initial calculation of pure bow vs bow it is NOT POSSIBLE for the difference to INCREASE. It must DECREASE.
However they are affected after feats, etc... is a different discussion.

I understood that. That's why I specifically quoted that portion of his calculation, and your interjection, and responded appropriately. Also, my previous post addresses the point about E. Shadowstrike (where I said that E. Thornlord would need even more RP to pull ahead against that bow). I just don't think it's fair to look at the bows by themselves without the common feats associated, which is why I responded to the portion of your post that I did.

[Deathlylife]

True, your statement was indeed ambiguous (and admittedly so was mine).

I understand now, the individual cases of math were correct but making the comparison was inappropriate. Thank you clarifying.

[FengXian]

That said, I do agree with your assessment of Thornlord with regards to it's growth potential and the possibility to overperform.

Then again, I think the probability of it overperforming is far more relevant than the possibility itself, alongside your definition or "overperforming".

Is it the best bow 20-22? Yes, and it should be, arguably by a wider margin than 25% (which I believe is not even proved yet since lv 29 stats were for some reason taken into account, unless I misread).

Will it be worth it to farm it in order to speed up levels 20-22? Not in a million years, people literally skip those levels with xp saga.

Will it overperform at levels 23+? Now THIS should be the real question. IF Pinion and ESapphire Sting get -5% crit range, the gap might become smaller (I still think Sting will be better because of 20% alacrity).

But is there any chance ET will actually become OP in levels 20-27 (because Chaosbow is ML 28)? No.

Deathly called it "Monstrosity" which is hilarious. Yes, expanded crit profile pulls you ahead the bigger your bonus damage/RP get, but the by-far-rarest bow in the game would still only be good for 3 levels. Not even close to being worth farming.

So no, I don't think it has any but theoretical potential to "overperform" maybe at +500 bonus damage or something when it might pull ahead of endgame stuff, pure speculation.

[Tuxedoman96]

Another point is that even if ET would pull ahead by 50% over other ML 20 bows, that would still not be an issue honestly. It's OK for absurdly rare weapons to be better, as long as they are not gamebreaking.

Define gamebreaking.

Making it more common isn't really a solution, either way SSG said no such thing. You want ET but you don't have it, ok.

I'm confused why making it more common wouldn't be a solution. Didn't you say yourself that It's OK for absurdly rare weapons to be better? Wouldn't that mean that weapons that aren't better shouldn't be absurdly rare?

[Deathlylife]

Then again, I think the probability of it overperforming is far more relevant than the possibility itself, alongside your definition or "overperforming".

Is it the best bow 20-22? Yes, and it should be, arguably by a wider margin than 25% (which I believe is not even proved yet since lv 29 stats were for some reason taken into account, unless I misread).

When I ran my calculations I assumed a level 20 ranger with no epic levels (then a different calculation at lvl 21 with combat archery) as I originally stated. I do not believe anyone thus far has used stats of a lvl 29 character. I only ran the numbers for a single build so it is not definitive proof but it can be a starting point. I considered a pure ranger but I would say a pure or 18/2 ftr could get much higher damage with their addition of bonus damage as well as higher standing Ranged Power.

Any personal opinion I shared of it overperforming was not theoretical for the case I discussed. I believe 17% to be too large and thus overperforming. The preview 2 updated values of ~7-9% I deem more tolerable for rewarding the grind while keeping things on a more even playing field.

[Tuxedoman96]

Then again, I think the probability of it overperforming is far more relevant than the possibility itself, alongside your definition or "overperforming".

Is it the best bow 20-22? Yes, and it should be, arguably by a wider margin than 25% (which I believe is not even proved yet since lv 29 stats were for some reason taken into account, unless I misread).

Will it be worth it to farm it in order to speed up levels 20-22? Not in a million years, people literally skip those levels with xp saga.

Will it overperform at levels 23+? Now THIS should be the real question. IF Pinion and ESapphire Sting get -5% crit range, the gap might become smaller (I still think Sting will be better because of 20% alacrity).

But is there any chance ET will actually become OP in levels 20-27 (because Chaosbow is ML 28)? No.

Deathly called it "Monstrosity" which is hilarious. Yes, expanded crit profile pulls you ahead the bigger your bonus damage/RP get, but the by-far-rarest bow in the game would still only be good for 3 levels. Not even close to being worth farming.

So no, I don't think it has any but theoretical potential to "overperform" maybe at +500 bonus damage or something when it might pull ahead of endgame stuff, pure speculation.

The possibility and probability are the very things that the devs are looking at when making those changes. It's also probably why they aren't making an exception with E. Thornlord. What you say about E. Thornlord's longevity is true because the bows that you are comparing it with have the same crit profile and will be treated the same with respect to the Combat Archery feat (and changes to threat range). If we made an exception for bows that are incredibly difficult to acquire then such bows may very well become BiS until you can use Chaosbow. Also, when we're talking about overperformance, it's not mutually exclusive. You can have a set of items overperform compared to the items outside of that set (in this case the set of bows with 18-20 crit range compared to the set of bows that do not have this crit range). Saying that because a particular lvl 23 bow can outperform a particular lvl 20 bow, the lvl 20 bow must not be overperforming doesn't take into account the possibility that both bows could be overperforming. Overperform here can be taken to mean that the item in question is quite a bit better in a certain capacity (in this case, damage) than an item of a similar kind (in this case named bows in general) in that same capacity. It wouldn't be fair to compare ET with a caster bow or a bow that is primarily used for CC for example. Of course, YMMV with regards to how much better an item has to be, but 25% does seem markedly better to me, especially when you factor in doubleshot and other multiplicative effects. now, I don't disagree with the notion that a rare bow should overperform, but the devs apparently feel that those bows could perform too well. And more than likely nothing would dissuade them from the impending changes. I think then that if we are coupling the performance of the bow to its rarity that if the performance of the bow decreases the rarity should consequently decrease.